The United States argues that the claims raised by Japan under various other provisions of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti‑Dumping Agreement rest on the assumption that the Panel has already found the 1916 Act to be in violation of Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement. Thus, each of these claims has the same mistaken premise, namely, that Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement make anti‑dumping duties the exclusive remedy for dumping and, further, that the 1916 Act is an anti‑dumping statute that provides remedies for dumping other than anti‑dumping duties.

3.11

The United States contends that Japan has failed to establish that Article VI and the Anti‑Dumping Agreement govern anti‑trust measures such as the 1916 Act, or that these provisions even govern all anti‑dumping measures. Japan's various claims under Article VI and the Anti‑Dumping Agreement therefore must be rejected.

I. VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLES 1 AND 18.1 OF THE ANTI-DUMPING AGREEMENT

3.1

Japan contends that, by applying the 1916 Act without meeting the requirements of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement, the United States also has violated its obligation under Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement.

3.2

Japan recalls that Article 1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement provides as follows:

"An anti‑dumping measure shall be applied only under the circumstances provided for in Article VI of GATT 1994 and pursuant to investigations initiated and conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Agreement. The following provisions govern the application of Article VI of GATT 1994 in so far as action is taken under anti‑dumping legislation or regulations."254

3.3

Japan also recalls that Article 18.1 reads as follows:

"No specific action against dumping of exports from another Member can be taken except in accordance with the provisions of GATT 1994, as interpreted by this Agreement."

3.4

Japan recalls, finally, that, as previously demonstrated, the United States has violated many provisions of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and Articles, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9 and 11 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement. Thus, the United States has violated Articles 1 and 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement.

3.5

The United States argues that the claims raised by Japan under various other provisions of Article VI of the GATT 1994 and the Anti‑Dumping Agreement rest on the assumption that the Panel has already found the 1916 Act to be in violation of Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement. Thus, each of these claims has the same mistaken premise, namely, that Article VI:2 of the GATT 1994 and Article 18.1 of the Anti‑Dumping Agreement make anti‑dumping duties the exclusive remedy for dumping and, further, that the 1916 Act is an anti‑dumping statute that provides remedies for dumping other than antidumping duties.

3.6

The United States contends that Japan has failed to establish that Article VI and the Anti‑Dumping Agreement govern anti‑trust measures such as the 1916 Act, or that these provisions even govern all anti‑dumping measures. Japan's various claims under Article VI and the Anti‑Dumping Agreement therefore must be rejected.